Bart, I think to me it seemed we completely disagreed on this until I read your last post.

I don't believe absolute gun control is "the" answer. I don't think there is any way to ensure that tragedies like this won't happen. We live in a fallen world and I understand that guns and other weapons can and will be used by unstable people no matter what we do.

I couldn't agree more.

That is no excuse however for inaction, not is it a rational argument that because we can't eliminate a problem that we can't manage the risks better.

Absolutely .

I think an examination of our gun laws and enforcement is a reasonable thing to look at and it's sad to me that it's taken 6 and 7 year olds being slaughtered to bring us to a tipping point of willingness to do it. I don't accept the argument that guns in the hands of private individuals that are military in nature are needed to defend us against our government.

I agree here as well. No need for a "semiautomatic machine gun" as Rich puts it. IMO, if one needs a semiautomatic rifle for protection, such as the one used in the school shooting, then it's time to see if one is getting paranoid.

We are our government.

Bart, I wish I still felt like this. I'm so disillusioned by the government that I really just think of it as "the" government. Too much corruption to want to call it my own.

It saddens me in general that so many professing Christians (and I've been one so please include myself in this assessment from my own past) prefer to live in fear and believe that their hope and security lies in firearms and the ability to deter violence with the threat of equal or greater violence.

Bart, living in the south where most people own weapons, I have noticed some that have given in to a sense of paranoia. But overall, most people I know with guns are extremely responsible gun owners. Much of that is because they have been brought up since childhood to be responsible. It kinda reminds me of how I hear that in countries with no legal drinking age, people are brought up to be more responsible drinkers. Not that there's no alcohol related problems, but maybe the problems aren't like they are here in the U. S. Oh wait, I just thought of drunk British football hooligans. So much for that theory.

the status quo is not desirable and should not continue and for me that means many different things have to be looked at, including what levels of gun control can be introduced or existing ones better enforced.

I agree. I think it begins with people being responsible gun owners. If I knew I had a mentally unstable son, and I had multiple guns and ammo where he had access, then am I being a responsible gun owner?

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

I can sympathise with the views of Bart, Paul & Neo on this one. Looking over from the other side of the pond the fascination and devotion to guns that many Americans display mystifies me. The weapon laws over here in Scotland are pretty restrictive and it's unusual to see even the Police carrying. There was a similar incident about half an hour from where I live in 1996 when a man ran into a school shooting others and then himself. The impact it had was far reaching and has led to schools becoming more security conscious, more awareness of mental health problems and far more restrictive laws on weapons.

I do feel the focus should really be on the bigger picture as to how and why this sort of thing happens, what we can do to help those who are still with us that have been affected by the incident and how we can minimise this sort of thing occurring again. Charlie Brooker's Newswipe from a few years ago in relation to a similar incident asked a forensic psychiatrist his opinion, it's one that stayed with me:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rMYyegT5Y

PaulSacramento wrote:I don't think that it is realistic to ban guns BUT I do NOT think that MORE guns is the solution to gun violence.

The unfortunate thing is that these shooting incidents seem to increase gun sales. The mere mention of gun control in the US, which is inevitably going to happen when someone goes out of control with a gun, leads to surges in guns sales as people panic buy.

Neo wrote:
Not at all. This is a simple question, given what we have from the gospels. You just don't like these because the honest answer goes against what you are saying here.
Plain question, would Jesus kill (weilding gun, axe, sword, dagger or whatever), in any circumstance, even in his day and age? Whats your position on this one?

Neo, that question was already answered in scripture. Look at what happened when people tried to grab Jesus to kill him before his time to die. Jesus simply slipped away. If you were God in the flesh, you wouldn't need no stinking guns.

Thats my point, this was persecution not a home invasion, that scenario is different.

Neo wrote:
This is quite a sorry argument and strawman here. We are not talking about just physical harm but killing. Everyone in the position would try to intervene, may be even kill the guy but that will be out of gut instinct, not of any Christian teachings.

Where is the scripture that says not to defend our family when a drug crazed moron breaks into our home and attacks our family?

Defense of family is not in question here, killing the assailant is, I am not saying you shouldn't defend your family, if you read back I said, killing someone is not a christian thing to do, even if you are killing hitler. if you defend your family and kill a guy you can't back this up from Christ's teaching you can back it up form common sense though as Bart point out in his post, period. Backing up killing with examples of Jesus' anger is simply wrong. I don't agree with it.

Neo, persecution for one's faith is a different thing than protecting your family in a home invasion, and I'm glad you see the difference. And, the U. S. is different from Muslim countries too. Neo if someone broke into your house and you saw them attacking your wife and children, would you just stand there and pray for their souls, or would you protect your family?

See above. This is not what I am saying nor arguing for.

Neo sounds like he is Saducee trained.

I never heard this statement from you when I was questioning atheists with same questions. Talk about double standards. I would suggest that you don't worry about my training and focus on the issue. You seem to have a bank of statements to insult others and deviate the thread. Personal insults may win you an argument but you will lose your respect.

Plain question, would Jesus kill (weilding gun, axe, sword, dagger or whatever), in any circumstance, even in his day and age? Whats your position on this one?

Neo. How about wielding flood waters? Or wielding an Army under Gideon. Need more examples.

You're telling me you don't know what would Jesus do? It is not a loaded question, the only thing you lose because of an honest answer is your position and so I can understand why you would avoid it.

However God executed judgment and will execute judgment.

Totally a different context.

neo-x wrote:
And there are people today who abandon everything when they are called by the lord. But I think the west has not seen people like these lately.

The operative term being "called by the Lord."
Sounds a little like your on your high horse. Since I live in the West, and know people called to minsitry.

Then you shouldn't have posted a ridiculous stereotyped statement to which I replied with this.

These acts are irrelavent, they are not life-death decisions, they are mere trivial things of life that would be irrelevant to even us lving today.

Most gun ownership is trivial. Look at the statistics for yourself.

So possessive about your guns! Good news I never said ban guns but I am surprised upon the fixation on guns. My original point was with what paul said, gun debate is pointless. Ask the more important question why is it happening.

Where did I claim that killing somone in self-defense is a "Christian teaching?"

Good, then we are on the same page with this one atleast.

Absolutley Christ dies for him. And Christ died for every person in prison for violent crimes. Should we let them go? Should we have let Osama go free, or brought him to justice?

Which Justice, God's or men's? The point is if they had repented would you let them go? Paul was a murderer (or agreed on the murder of stephen) and a torturer, that guilt stayed with him for a long time, is one murder less horrible than 1000 murders? only in our eyes, not in the lords, unless you are ranking sin. This is obviously not an argument, as it would lead nowhere but I wanted to know your thoughts on this.

It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.

neo-x wrote:Which Justice, God's or men's? The point is if they had repented would you let them go? Paul was a murderer (or agreed on the murder of stephen) and a torturer, that guilt stayed with him for a long time, is one murder less horrible than 1000 murders? only in our eyes, not in the lords, unless you are ranking sin. This is obviously not an argument, as it would lead nowhere but I wanted to know your thoughts on this.

This assumes the two(men and God's justice) are always in conflict or mutually exclusive.
Paul wasn't a murderer in the state's eyes. If he were and was convicted, he would serve his penalty.
Believe it or not, there is a difference between forgiveness and civil justice. I believe there are many people in prison who are forgiven. That doesn't mean I believe they should be released.
In one sense sin is sin, in that it all condemns and leaves us guilty. And all sin is rooted in self. And in the sense that it is all handled at the cross. But that doesn't necessarily mean that all sin is equal.

Defense of family is not in question here, killing the assailant is, I am not saying you shouldn't defend your family, if you read back I said, killing someone is not a christian thing to do, even if you are killing hitler. if you defend your family and kill a guy you can't back this up from Christ's teaching you can back it up form common sense though as Bart point out in his post, period. Backing up killing with examples of Jesus' anger is simply wrong. I don't agree with it.

Neo, it is just a reality that in some cases, defending the family, may result in the death of the assailant.
Regarding killing Hitler. I'd recommend reading about Dietrich Bonhoeffer before you paint with such a broad brush.
Regarding killing someone. I wouldn't say you should 'defend' it from Christ's teachings. I do think that you can defend being a provider and protecter for your family. And thus, i see it as equally wrong to defend allowing your family to be attacked and killed in this scenario. I'm not backing up examples with Jesus' anger. That was another poster's comment (i think Byblos), and you are wrongly applying it to me.

I never heard this statement from you when I was questioning atheists with same questions. Talk about double standards. I would suggest that you don't worry about my training and focus on the issue. You seem to have a bank of statements to insult others and deviate the thread. Personal insults may win you an argument but you will lose your respect.

I could equally say that when I do address an issue that puts you at odds, that you result to saying things like this. My response is that you said I didn't want to answer a question because I was afraid of the answer. Well, I've answered the question, just not to your liking. I can see it's a loaded question, and I pointed out that many loaded questions were directed at Jesus. Specifically one by the Saducees. So, it's not personal insult. It is an example. Insulting? Well maybe. Insulting because it's false or true?

Totally a different context.

Yes, I agree. Look at how you worded the question.

So possessive about your guns! Good news I never said ban guns but I am surprised upon the fixation on guns. My original point was with what paul said, gun debate is pointless. Ask the more important question why is it happening.

Thats my point, this was persecution not a home invasion, that scenario is different.

Then what's the argument?

-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord

"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious

Has anyone noticed that most who post here and are in favor of tougher gun control in the USA are aliens? Americans should not even consider the opinions of foreigners when it comes to something so fundamental to your culture and values.

Have a little backbone, please!

FL

Hold everything lightly. If you don't, it will hurt when God pries your fingers loose as He takes it from you. -Corrie Ten Boom

+ + +

If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Has anyone noticed that most who post here and are in favor of tougher gun control in the USA are aliens? Americans should not even consider the opinions of foreigners when it comes to something so fundamental to your culture and values.

Have a little backbone, please!

FL

So then your opinion of our considering the opinions of aliens is meaningless too, because you're not a U. S. citizen?

FL, you're a true American at heart.

When Canada kicks you out, you're welcome here with the rest of the Canadian expatriates.

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

Has anyone noticed that most who post here and are in favor of tougher gun control in the USA are aliens? Americans should not even consider the opinions of foreigners when it comes to something so fundamental to your culture and values.

Have a little backbone, please!

That's actually a pretty sad comment in my opinion FL. There's no correlation between views of gun control and citizenship status that I'm aware of. So all that comment amounts to is xenophobia and the tying of two unrelated issues to make an emotional appeal to prejudice. If you can produce a study that shows such a correlation which demonstrates a causative relationship between the two, I'd be happy to examine and it and stand corrected. The onus for producing it is on you however.

I'm a naturalized US citizen. Others may disagree with my opinion and that is fine. I am not a second class citizen because of my status as an immigrant.

Yes, I know you are "joking." Humor is often appealed to, in order to mask other things.

Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender

Canuckster1127 wrote:There's no correlation between views of gun control and citizenship status that I'm aware of.

Citizenship status...well, Canadians, Brits, Australians & Pakistanis are not Americans, do not live in the USA, do not participate in its culture, do not understand the American mindset, and so on. Their opinions are not to be considered in what is an internal debate between citizens of the USA, that's all. As for you being a naturalized US citizen, well, you are like those African women who come to the West and keep wearing their headscarves and mismatched colors as if they were still in Africa. Your children are American, you will always be...odd.*

RickD wrote:Trailer parks are only for old Canadians. You're...nevermind, I guess you are an old Canadian. There's a trailer with your name on it somewhere in Florida.

As nicely as I can say it .... GET BENT! (How's that for being American?! Canadians aren't that rude, eh?)

I've lived in the US since 1978, I grew up 40 miles away from the US awash in US television and culture, and have gone to US High School and College. I grew up in a family that hunts, owned guns and just to the political right of Attila the Hun.

All you're offering is an ad hominem statement diminishing opinions by appealing to racial and xenophobic stereotypes and fears. Now THAT is American!

Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender

neo-x wrote:
Which Justice, God's or men's? The point is if they had repented would you let them go? Paul was a murderer (or agreed on the murder of stephen) and a torturer, that guilt stayed with him for a long time, is one murder less horrible than 1000 murders? only in our eyes, not in the lords, unless you are ranking sin. This is obviously not an argument, as it would lead nowhere but I wanted to know your thoughts on this.

This assumes the two(men and God's justice) are always in conflict or mutually exclusive.

And aren't you assuming this is never the case?

Paul wasn't a murderer in the state's eyes. If he were and was convicted, he would serve his penalty.
Believe it or not, there is a difference between forgiveness and civil justice. I believe there are many people in prison who are forgiven. That doesn't mean I believe they should be released.

I dont' think the people who stoned stephen were murderers in the state's eyes either. Nor were the criminals in front of the Jewish authorities.

Believe it or not, there is a difference between forgiveness and civil justice. I believe there are many people in prison who are forgiven. That doesn't mean I believe they should be released.

no disagreement.

In one sense sin is sin, in that it all condemns and leaves us guilty. And all sin is rooted in self. And in the sense that it is all handled at the cross. But that doesn't necessarily mean that all sin is equal.

Now you are conflating it. I was not talking about releasing prisoners, I was talking about forgiveness and how one defines it.

Neo, it is just a reality that in some cases, defending the family, may result in the death of the assailant.
Regarding killing Hitler. I'd recommend reading about Dietrich Bonhoeffer before you paint with such a broad brush.
Regarding killing someone. I wouldn't say you should 'defend' it from Christ's teachings. I do think that you can defend being a provider and protecter for your family. And thus, i see it as equally wrong to defend allowing your family to be attacked and killed in this scenario. I'm not backing up examples with Jesus' anger. That was another poster's comment (i think Byblos), and you are wrongly applying it to me.

I would agree with Dietrich Bonhoeffer on all grounds except that assassinating Hitler has some form of Christian teaching elements to it. And if you are not arguing for that then there would be nothing to disagree with here.

Oh I meant it for Byblos, not you, but I see the mistake now, I forgot to write "Byblos wrote" on the top where I quoted him.

I never heard this statement from you when I was questioning atheists with same questions. Talk about double standards. I would suggest that you don't worry about my training and focus on the issue. You seem to have a bank of statements to insult others and deviate the thread. Personal insults may win you an argument but you will lose your respect.

I could equally say that when I do address an issue that puts you at odds, that you result to saying things like this. My response is that you said I didn't want to answer a question because I was afraid of the answer. Well, I've answered the question, just not to your liking. I can see it's a loaded question, and I pointed out that many loaded questions were directed at Jesus. Specifically one by the Saducees. So, it's not personal insult. It is an example. Insulting? Well maybe. Insulting because it's false or true?

Lol, you equate me to a Sadducee and then you go on and justify it, wow!
You still haven't answered the question. I asked you, would Jesus kill in any circumstance? You still have not provided an answer, you just avoided it, saying its loaded, what is loaded about this question? I fail to see that. I am not talking about arbitration here. You, being an intelligent man, well studied, read the gospels. Tell me based on you opinion, would Jesus kill under any circumstance?

I'm so fixated on guns that I've never owned one. Amazing

Whats more amazing is that you are actually defending something you are strictly not a part of. Is that anyway different than what Gman does, not being a Jew and aggressively defending the law and Jewish tradition?

Ties back into what I asked you earlier and your statements a couple of pages back.

It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.

Canuckster1127 wrote:(How's that for being American?! Canadians aren't that rude, eh?)

Anglophone Canadians are not as nice as Americans; they are more hypocritical, actually. French Canadians are just rude.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I've lived in the US since 1978, I grew up 40 miles away from the US awash in US television and culture, and have gone to US High School and College. I grew up in a family that hunts, owned guns and just to the political right of Attila the Hun.

OK...I assume you are saying that a right-wing person from a Canadian family is the same as a conservative person from an American family? (and vice versa?) This doesn't really hold water, but the holes in the jug are small, so I can see how someone would think that. On the other hand, you may be speaking just about yourself...so maybe, given your family history, you are not like that African woman...you may be more like a vinyl couch which appears leather from a distance.

Canuckster1127 wrote:All you're offering is an ad hominem statement diminishing opinions by appealing to racial and xenophobic stereotypes and fears. Now THAT is American!

Nope. You're reading too much into what I'm saying. All I'm saying is this: Americans should not consider the opinions of foreigners when it comes to internal matters.

FL

Hold everything lightly. If you don't, it will hurt when God pries your fingers loose as He takes it from you. -Corrie Ten Boom

+ + +

If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.